Could/Can Madhuri play subtle roles with SOFT dialogue delivery ? - Page 3

Originally posted by: harun98

Its not obsession, the role demand innocence and Manisha was suitable choice than Madhuri, if its about strong women then Madhuri would of fitted better.

Manisha Koirala came into picture only because Dixit refused to toe Chopra's line. If Dixit had ditched other films, for which she was already shooting, and unjustly given those dates to Chopra , he would not have signed Koirala, question of Koirala being innocent-faced or not does not arise.

Originally posted by: harun98

Its not obsession, the role demand innocence and Manisha was suitable choice than Madhuri, if its about strong women then Madhuri would of fitted better.

It is definitely an obsession in general - as evidenced by the content of most Bollywood-related forums. And of course Madhuri could pull off innocence as well as strength. No, Chopra wanted to show her who's boss and dared to accuse her, of all people, of "lack of dedication".

Originally posted by: dedh

It is definitely an obsession in general - as evidenced by the content of most Bollywood-related forums. And of course Madhuri could pull off innocence as well as strength. No, Chopra wanted to show her who's boss and dared to accuse her, of all people, of "lack of dedication".

so who was the best choice for this film in your opinion? each role has different demand. If its strong feisty aggressive woman, Madhuri hands down owns Manisha and as well as other department, but this role in 1942 love story demand the character to be young female and there was no one better than Manisha for this film. Ofcourse there was Sridevi but she was too old for this film by that stage.

Originally posted by: harun98

so who was the best choice for this film in your opinion? each role has different demand. If its strong feisty aggressive woman, Madhuri hands down owns Manisha and as well as other department, but this role in 1942 love story demand the character to be young female and there was no one better than Manisha for this film. Ofcourse there was Sridevi but she was too old for this film by that stage.

I think you're looking at acting profession (and character types that can be played) in an incredibly simplistic, binary way. Sadly, in this you're not that different from many Bollywood producers, though. For example, how does one know there was no one better than Manisha, or Madhuri, or Sri, for that particular role? (Because looking meek and young doesn't exactly cut it). One doesn't. The very fact that you're mentioning merely 3 names in the context of that movie (not your fault, of course!) is laughable in itself because we're talking about an industry aimed at hundreds of millions of viewers and employing hundreds of thousands of people.

Ultimately, acting is about pretending, not about being willingly typecast. Just today, Chopra recalled Nana Patekar's wish not to wear an inflammable suit in Parinda because that could have made his performance less realistic or something. To which I say bulls***. I get it - every actor has his/her own approach to role, but ultimately what we should expect from actors is precisely the ability to pretend they're consumed with fire even if they're not.

The role never demanded innocence, the song ek ladki describes what rajjo is perfectly and nowhere is the word innocence even mentioned, infact she is described as 'chadhta Nasha' among other things.

As far as innocence is concerned Dixit played such role in her first film itself.

People are weird.

VVC went ahead with Monisha Koirala after offering to Madhuri (whatever be the reason).
Monisha was the new sensation after Saudaagar and Ilu Ilu song. Around the same time, Madhuri came with Hum Aapke Hain Koun. We know, who won ultimately. (Or whose “innocence” was accepted by audience as more natural. Rajjo or Nisha).

(Edit: Got confused 1942 with Khamoshi).

What’s this obsession of bashing Madz on the forum...